]]>Sometimes, when faced with utter stupidity or deep-rooted bigotry, one has to be blunt. This is precisely what furious parents have been doing since the Sunday Times published one of its usual outrage-gauging pieces dutifully testing the waters for how much those with power can get away with.

It reported yesterday that Ofsted’s new chief inspector Amanda Spielman called for Ofsted inspectors to question Muslim girls that wear hijabs in primary schools, to find out why they do so. What has earned her even more ridicule and outrage was her justification: “creating an environment where primary school children are expected to wear the hijab could be interpreted as sexualisation of young girls.”[1]

Muslims from all backgrounds—as well as many non-Muslims—have expressed disbelief and outrage. The General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Harun Khan, stated:

“It is deeply worrying that Ofsted has announced it will be specifically targeting and quizzing young Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf. It sends a clear message to all British women who adopt this that they are second class citizens, that while they are free to wear the headscarf, the establishment would prefer that they do not.”[2]

There have also been the usual handful of collaborators, who have obediently jumped in to ossify the ancient racist stereotypes that fuel or allow such demonstrably fictitious narratives and ignorant policies to exist. Sadly there is no shortage of “useful idiots” that will happily (often ignorantly) feed into colonial narratives of salvation, or stereotypes that demonise the very minorities they claim to belong to.

Clothes don’t sexualise people

Many people talking about this current debacle have been doing so without realising, let alone addressing, an implicit universality of white cultural tastes when talking about the hijab. The “young kids aren’t required to wear hijab” argument misses the point; young kids aren’t “required” to wear many things that they still wear—this is not about “sexualising” anyone.

The point here is of the tastes, norms and normative behaviour of one cultural or religious tradition compared to another. In the United Kingdom today, the dominant (white, so-called “liberal”, Christian-secular[3]) cultural norms of dress are such that the head is uncovered. This happens to be in contrast with the cultural norms of most, if not all, Muslims—regardless of where those norms derive from.

Those that accuse the hijab of “sexualising” a girl or a woman have taken today’s White western dress tastes and norms as the standard benchmark of normality, to which others are subjected. So, to them, the hijab is something “additional”, and must be explained—which is where false stereotypes about Muslims that have long been in the Western Christian imagination are used, as well as projections of people’s own insecurities. They must be adding that “extra” garment because their backwards culture oppresses women, or their men cannot control themselves if they see a few strands of hair, for example.

In my opinion, Muslims should not feel the need to justify the hijab to anyone. Instead of trying to undo the centuries of brainwashing against the “Barbarian” or “Infidel” or “Muhammadan” or “Extremist” (delete depending on era being discussed), we should merely ask the question: is everyone sexualising their children by putting clothes on them full-stop, or are they simply garments that are outside the dominant cultural norms? Would Amanda Spielman accept there is a possibility of her children being “sexualised” if she happened to visit or emigrate to a culture where the norm was to be topless in public? Ironically, she would probably regard those less covered to be “primitive” or “uncivilised”.

The anti-multiculturalism agenda and the ghost of Michael Gove’s imaginary Trojan horse

It is very important to remember at times like these that the actual locus of this latest debacle is not what is intended. This is not about protecting girls, as an extremely narrow reading, shorn of context, would suggest. In fact, if the interests of Muslim girls was anything important, then Ofsted would be doing precisely the opposite of what it has been.[4] This is merely one example of a growing right wing trend in Britain to reverse multiculturalism—a phenomenon some people have scapegoated as the cause of all of their grievances.

As Professor David Miller stated in his report on neoconservatism—the ideology that drives much of the anti-multiculturalism agenda in Britain today:

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”[5]

Ofsted was accused of becoming “politicised” when Michael Gove—an extreme proponent of this ideology—took over the Department for Education as Education Secretary, which coincided with Ofsted’s newfound “obsession” with Islam and Muslims.[6] When he appointed a new head of Ofsted, Michael Wilshaw, the General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), Chris Keates, claimed that Ofsted had become a “political weapon”, and nobody regarded it as independent anymore.[7]

Michael Gove was a founding member of the infamous anti-Muslim Henry Jackson Society (HJS), which has long been linked to and funded by extreme Islamophobes from overseas.[8] Its Associate Director Douglas Murray, for example, is on record for urging that “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board,”[9] with Schools being just one obvious example.

Of course, one of Gove’s most famous scandals— the effects of which Muslims pupils particularly in deprived areas still suffer from—was the notorious Trojan Horse hoax. This was the Islamophobic witch-hunt which whipped up mass panic and national hysteria, that turned exceptionally successful schools run by Muslims into now-failing schools pushing Gove’s ideology, which was eventually exposed by an Education Select Committee as being a hoax—after all the damage had been done.[10]

Michael Gove was sacked as Education Secretary and replaced by Nicky Morgan in 2014, but was accused of “back-seat driving” the Department for Education with many allies embedded within it and Ofsted.[11] Furthermore, it was revealed last month by Cage that a “network of hate” still operates across several institutions inclu00ding Ofsted, with the current head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman—who made yesterday’s outrageous comments—having had a “lengthy working relationship” with Michael Gove, as well as being involved in the Trojan Hoax scandal.[12]

She was controversially appointed as the head of Ofsted despite being rejected by MPs in the education select committee last year. Despite the MPs interviewing her concluding she was neither qualified nor prepared for the job, the Education Secretary strangely still forced through her appointment.[13]

Those against multiculturalism often show the weakness and insecurities of their own culture

There may be genuine arguments against some people’s interpretations or concretisations of so-called “multiculturalism” that are actually grounded in reality, as opposed to carefully crafted dog whistles to distract people from real issues. For example, there is a benefit of a shared culture or norms among a body of people living together. However, the answer is not to force the tastes of one particular culture over another. If someone regards Muslims’ refusal to adopt their cultural tastes and norms as problematic, then the problem is with them not with Muslims, especially since Muslims have generally adopted beneficial aspects of other cultures wherever they have existed in their 1,400-year history.

If, on the other hand, millions of pounds of propaganda and egregious examples of state coercion and structural racism are required to forcefully impose certain cultural norms on Muslims (or anyone else for that matter), then that speaks volumes about the relative strength, logic and benefit of such cultural norms compared to normative Muslim practices.

As many have noted both today and in recent weeks, western societies would be a much safer place for both men and women if only a few examples of Islamic cultural norms or guidelines were to be benefitted from.[14] This is what makes the scapegoating of Muslims and Islam by people in power to direct outrage away from the real problems of society even more tragic. If we were not busy focusing on scapegoats or refuting tired stereotypes and lies, we could talk about how schools, even in Theresa May’s own constituency, are having to ask parents to help pay for essential school equipment as a result of funding cuts,[15] or how sexual assault against children by children is increasing year on year to shocking levels.[16] That is, if we really had the interests of children at heart.

[3] I say “Christian-secular” as I believe secularism in the United Kingdom to be a manifestation of today’s Western Christianity, or at least in many areas a culture based on Western Christianity with parts altered or removed from it altogether (such as doctrines regarding God).

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/girls-hijab-questioned-ofsted-inquisitors-tell-get-lost-mind-business/feed/028630Mend responds to Henry Jackson Society report attacking Muslim activistshttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/mend-responds-henry-jackson-society-report-attacking-muslim-activists/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/mend-responds-henry-jackson-society-report-attacking-muslim-activists/#respondWed, 01 Nov 2017 16:39:38 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=28384The neoconservative think tank, Henry Jackson Society (HJS), released another report yesterday attacking Muslim activists in the UK, this time focusing on Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development). The HJS is well known for writing reports attacking Muslim activists, in particular those campaigning against Islamophobia and for wider public participation of Muslims in the UK.[1] It ...

The HJS is well known for writing reports attacking Muslim activists, in particular those campaigning against Islamophobia and for wider public participation of Muslims in the UK.[1] It is funded by far right organisations and individuals from overseas, such as Nina Rosenwald, dubbed “the sugar mama of anti-Muslim hate”,[2] and its Associate Director, Douglas Murray regularly praises far right Islamophobes, including Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders.[3][4]

The HJS’s routine attacks on Muslim organisations are thought to be a result of the likes of Murray’s expressed desire that “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”[5] It has, as a result, little credibility outside of Islamophobic circles, with even Theresa May’s cabinet members “scrambling” to disassociate with them last year,[6] and their last report attacking Muslim speakers provoking widespread ridicule when it was turned into a “Premier League” table of Muslim speakers most hated by Islamophobes.[7]

This latest attack came on the eve of Mend’s launch of Islamophobia Awareness Month in Parliament, which seemingly enraged certain Islamophobic blogs, organisations and journalists, who have tried pressuring the MPs involved to get the event cancelled.

Mend released the following statement today in response to the attacks.

The Henry Jackson Society have published the aforementioned report. Whilst the document is long, it is thin on detail. It attempts to paint a picture of an extremist organisation due to our stance on opposing aspects of the Governments Counter-Terrorism legislation, opposition to policies pursued by the State of Israel and the promotion of “conspiratorial narratives” about Islamophobia.

Quite simply the report equates political dissent with extremism. This is ironic given that the motto for Henry Jackson Society is “Democracy. Freedom. Human Rights.”

The timing of its publication on the eve of the launch of Islamophobia Awareness Month and our event in Parliament on 1st November 2017 is not coincidental.

Our Parliamentary event shows that we operate in the mainstream of British society and our work has recently been praised by senior figures in all three main UK political parties, including the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat Party leaders.

The Henry Jackson Society report clearly has its own partisan agenda and is aimed at discrediting Mend with a view to trying to discourage politicians, journalists, unions, civil liberty organisations and others to work with us. Our increasing influence and acceptance is an irritant to the Henry Jackson Society and it appears that they believe only certain organisations can be allowed to express political views on behalf of Muslims. It is completely predictable therefore that Inspire and Tell Mama are reported on favourably.

Readers of the report will note that many of its claims are based on innuendo and false assertions. We will be producing a counter-document responding to each and every allegation. We unequivocally reject any allegations of anti-semitism, homophobia, or extremism.

We will also be exposing this report as an example of Professional Islamophobia and demonstrate the partisan motivations behind the author, the Henry Jackson Society, and the neocon movement being mobilised against us.

We will study each statement carefully and not hesitate to take legal action where defamatory comments have been made

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/mend-responds-henry-jackson-society-report-attacking-muslim-activists/feed/028384“Segregation” of boys and girls in Islamic school ruled unlawfulhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/segregation-of-boys-and-girls-in-islamic-school-ruled-unlawful/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/segregation-of-boys-and-girls-in-islamic-school-ruled-unlawful/#respondFri, 13 Oct 2017 17:59:21 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=28186...in the same week as a BBC investigation revealed shocking institutional failures surrounding an explosion in child-on-child sexual abuse in mixed schools across the country...

]]>Without a hint of irony, the Court of Appeals have ruled in favour of Ofsted in a row over “gender segregation” in schools in the same week as a BBC investigation revealed shocking institutional failures surrounding an explosion in child-on-child sexual abuse in mixed schools across the country.

Ofsted’s new grudge with Muslim schools

In June 2016 Ofsted suddenly placed an inner-city Birmingham school with an Islamic ethos into special measures, citing the separation of male and female students due to its Islamic ethos as the reason, despite it not being a problem for many years.

Birmingham City Council however, instead of acquiescing to such treatment as is sadly common with many Muslims, challenged Ofsted by bringing a judicial review claim to the High Court, because the Al-Hijrah school “had been held to a different standard than other schools with similar arrangements, which had not been downgraded by Ofsted as a consequence.”[1]

In November 2016 the High Court judge Mr Justice Jay ruled that it was wrong for Ofsted to penalise the Al-Hijrah school. He lifted a ban Ofsted put on the school, ruling against Ofsted principally for acting unlawfully by “changing its mind” about the impact of “segregation”, stating that its inspectors were motivated by actual or apparent bias.[2] He noted that the school had separated 9-16-year-old boys and girls in the classroom “for a number of years without comment or objection” from Ofsted.[3]

In July of this year Ofsted launched an appeal against the High Court decision against them, and today the Court of Appeal have ruled in their favour, in a ruling that has perplexed many. They stated that separating boys and girls whilst not disadvantaging either, was still contrary to the Equalities Act 2010. Ofsted has, as a result, come under criticism from many in the Muslim community due to its specific treatment of Muslim schools for doing what many Jewish and Christian schools have been doing for many years.

“Ofsted should be put into special measures”

Ofsted’s newfound obsession with Muslim schools coincided with the appointment of Michael Wilshaw, its chief inspector from 2012-2016. Wilshaw was appointed by the neoconservative Michael Gove when he was education secretary, who has repeatedly came under fire for allegedly “politicising Ofsted”.

Michael Gove was a founding member of the infamous anti-Muslim think tank Henry Jackson Society (HJS) linked to and funded by extreme Islamophobes from overseas.[4] Its Associate Director, Douglas Murray, is infamously on record for urging that “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board,”[5]with schools being an obvious locus. Professor David Miller explains in a damning report into the neoconservative ideology that drives the likes of the HJS:[6]

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”

The neoconservative ideology’s Cold War style obsession with un-Britishness, its desire to strengthen organs of the state, weaken civil society’s ability to dissent, and so on, have been thought to be behind Ofsted’s increasing politicisation and power over schools across the country.

When Wilshaw was appointed, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), Chris Keates, complained that Ofsted had become a “political weapon”:[7]

“…Ofsted [is] being viewed by nobody as independent from the secretary of state. It’s now being seen by teachers not as an inspection system, but as an arm of government… Many of the pronouncements coming out of Ofsted seem to be absolutely equal to things Michael Gove has said. I think it’s bad for the chief inspector and I think it’s bad for public accountability.”

It was only yesterday that one celebrated head teacher wrote a blistering critique on Ofsted itself needing to be put under special measures, having become far too influential and “ruining teachers’ lives”.[8]

What should Muslims do?

There are two ways forward for Muslims now, if they wish to maintain their own harmless normative practises and identity in the face of growingly irrational hostility.

The first is to suddenly acquire privilege and power, and afford to send their children to the best schools in the land—which are almost invariably sex-separated. This way they will have the honour of their views being entertained as part of a rational debate on equal footing, rather than by coercion if the interlocutors are unequipped with cogent arguments.

Until that happens, the second choice will have to suffice. That is, those brave enough to put their necks on the line challenging institutional Islamophobia and a two-tiered system, must be supported in their challenges. History has shown that this is a long road and the early attempts are always peppered with defeats. This must not dissuade Muslims, and indeed others for that matter, who realise the agendas at play here. It is good fortune to have antagonists so blinded in their obstinate shooting from the hip that they have ended up inadvertently firing at a whole host of Jewish and Christian schools as well. Thus a ruling as impactful as this should go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and now would surely be a good time for the otherwise timid to take a stand and voice their support.

Some may spend hours arguing with the propaganda of those that try desperately to spin benign practises through the lens of national security or “extremism”, in the service of their Islamophobia. But for all rational adults in this case I believe they have exposed themselves and the weakness of their own ideology—whether neoconservatism or faux liberalism—that rely on the forceful arm of the state to coerce where their arguments fail.

Normative Muslim practices are proven not only to result in a better-quality education and development, but also protect children from the plethora of ills that are presumably a justifiable cost in the service of other people’s ideology.[9] As the BBC investigation revealed just days ago, sexual offences by children against children are on the increase, with over 21 incidents per day on average in England and Wales, more than six reported rapes per day (one every four hours), including on school premises.

It is an open mind and sound intellect that is required to appreciate the wisdom behind such practises, which exist in some form or another in all wisdom traditions throughout the globe. Encouraging people towards thinking clearly should take priority over arguing about specific practises.

]]>The London-based Centre for Public Affairs revealed that the UAE spent around $5.3 million funding an anti-Qatar conference that aimed to prove ‘Qatar’s sponsorship of terrorism groups’.[1]

In a statement released on Thursday 14th of September, the Centre for Public Affairs added that the lavish UAE Embassy in Knightsbridge paid part of the conference’s expenses, part funded by its embassy in Washington and from other government companies based in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The statement dubbed Thursday’s conference as one “run by Zionist and Pro-Israeli lobbyist(s)”, and an event that can justifiably be called a “UAE-AIPAC Conference”, due to its pre-selected, carefully crafted, anti-Qatar panel.

The panel hosted no Qatari opposition or even Qatari nationals or members from the UK parliament apart from three conservative, pro-Israeli politicians. The conference however, did not fall short in hosting the infamous Islamophobe, Founder and Executive Director of the Islamophobic think-tank, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), Alan Mendoza.[2]

In another statement, the Centre reiterated that the UAE is using London as “a vehicle to harm Qatar’s stability, security and political system” and that the UAE is working tirelessly to create Qatari opposition, much of which is formed by “paid, recruited individuals and companies.”

In a statement released on the 5th of September, the centre embarrassingly revealed that the conference’s organiser ‘Khalid al-Hail’, supposedly a ‘Qatari opposition leader’ has in fact never worked in politics. This is not to mention that the young 29-year-old ‘businessman’, pictured as one of its financial sponsors has no current business activity in the United Kingdom.

Despite the millions funnelled into setting up the London conference, British media seemed largely uninterested in reporting it. Apart from Abu Dhabi’s ‘The National’ report with under a dozen ‘shares’, [3] amongst other Arab-based outlets, the media either brushed over the event, or failed to report it altogether in what reiterates many analysts’ views that the UAE is becoming overtly desperate, ready to channel huge sums of wealth to demonise the image of Qatar whilst others have found no reason to agree.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/uaes-5-3m-anti-qatar-london-conference-fails-to-arouse-interest/feed/027975Judgement Released: Judicial Review into Preventhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/judgement-released-judicial-review-into-prevent/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/judgement-released-judicial-review-into-prevent/#respondThu, 27 Jul 2017 08:35:50 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=27471We welcome the release of the judicial review judgement after waiting for almost eight months. Although we seek to appeal parts of it, we are please to say that there are some very positive outcomes for the community, alhamdulillāh...

• We welcome the judgement after waiting almost eight months, but it does not go far enough in some key areas, so we will be appealing parts of it.

• Nonetheless, there are some key positive outcomes for the community.

• For the first time, we have a judge outline the limits of Prevent – and they are very different to how it has been understood and implemented for years.

• The judge ruled that any reference to “non-violent extremism” and opposition to “British values” in the Prevent Duty Guidance (PDG) only refers to such views that demonstrably risk drawing people towards terrorism, as legally defined. As for any other so-called “non-violent extremism” that does not create an actual risk for drawing people into terrorism, “the guidance does not apply to it.”

• In addition to the above, the judge ruled that the Prevent Duty Guidance is only a recommendation and, as such, no one has to actually follow it. This includes the infamous definition of “non-violent extremism” used by the government in the past (“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values…”)—people are under no obligation to use that as a working definition for “extremism”.

• There is no such thing in reality as a “Prevent duty”. It has been reasserted that the actual legal obligation upon the public sector is to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” (not “extremism”). This is, in fact, a policing duty (stopping terrorism) that has been placed on the public sector, the vast majority of which has neither the training nor the resources to carry it out.

• Therefore, the confused (and confusing) nature of guidance surrounding Prevent—including its misunderstood legal basis and remit—render it unfit for purpose, even if it is “just a recommendation”.

• We also challenged the collection, storage and dissemination of private citizens’ data by a previously secretive and opaque department within the Home Office called the Extremism Analysis Unit. This unit was shown to effectively outsource what we argued was surveillance to a well known Islamophobic organisation not working within the strict legal framework that applies to authorities investigating individuals.

• We were disappointed that the judge did not regard this as a breach under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, based on the facts of this case. This will be one of the points subject to appeal.

After months a high court judge has finally interpreted the Prevent Guidance

Alhamdulillāh, we welcome the release of the judicial review judgement after waiting almost eight months. Whilst there are some very positive outcomes for the community, we feel that the judgement does not go far enough in some key areas. InshāAllāh, we will be appealing due to the ramifications on the civil rights of not just the Muslim community, but all citizens.

This is the first step in a long process of holding our government to account. For a long time, the (mis)application of Prevent has seen countless people and organisations have their civil liberties curtailed unnecessarily without recourse to due process. But this is about to change, inshāAllāh.

The judicial review was arguing two main grounds against the government. The first was that the Prevent Duty Guidance (PDG) issued to higher education bodies in particular, is against the law, as it focused on a vaguely-defined “non-violent extremism” whereas the actual legal duty (based on CTS Act 2015) was concerning “terrorism”—which has a different legal definition altogether.

For the first time we have managed to get a judge to outline the limits of Prevent

Prevent has been around for a decade, and it has taken a judge and legal experts many months to actually understand it – so what about “normal” people who are under the impression that they have to submit to it?

The Counter-Terrorism & Security (CTS) Act 2015 established a legal duty on the public sector (not private individuals or community organisations) to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” The Prevent Duty Guidance, however, introduced the vague and problematic notion of “extremism” and, in particular, “non-violent extremism”, and was “clumsily” worded (according to the judge). This gave many universities the impression that they had to limit “non-violent extremism” on campus. The crux of our legal argument was that the Prevent Duty Guidance was thus ultra vires—outside the power given to the government by the CTS Act 2015, by drawing the net significantly wider than “terrorism” to include “extremism” in the radar.

The judge did not agree that it was ultra vires, but the reason for this is what is important: it is because he interpreted the guidance as significantly more watered down than the impression that the public have of Prevent and how it has been applied so far.

Firstly: As for the reference to “extremism” or “non-violent extremism”, the judge ruled that this only refers to “extremist” views that are actually linked to “terrorism”, which has its own, clear definition in law.

“The active opposition to fundamental British values must in some respect risk drawing others into terrorism before the guidance applies to it. If there is some non-violent extremism, however intrinsically undesirable, which does not create a risk that others will be drawn into terrorism, the guidance does not apply to it.” [Paragraph 31 of the judgement]

Secondly: He judged that the Prevent Duty Guidance is only a recommendation, and as such no one has to actually follow it. What is required of public bodies, is to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism,” nothing to do with Prevent per se. This includes the popular definition of “extremism” given by the government in the guidance (“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values…”)—people are under no obligation to take that as a definition of “extremism” that needs preventing. In other words, public bodies can take the Prevent Duty Guidance into account, and then completely ignore it.

There is no such thing as Prevent “duty”

Calling it the Prevent duty is therefore a misnomer. It is confusing guidance given to the public sector to carry out what is a “terrorism duty” according to the CTS Act 2015, which is in fact a policing duty (stopping terrorism) placed on the public sector, the vast majority of which has neither the training nor resources to carry it out properly.

All of the above means that a great deal of public bodies will be able to revise their policies on dealing with Prevent in a way that should limit much of the harm it has been causing, alhamdulillah. Indeed, I have been informed that the Prevent Duty Guidance to universities has already been changed to reflect the problems that came to light in the case. However, it is not enough.

The great confusion, contradictions and ambiguity that characterise Prevent has meant that, over the years, thousands of innocent people have been affected by it—with the vast majority having absolutely nothing to do with “terrorism”. The widespread interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Prevent guidance has led to much discrimination, alienation and resentment within the Muslim community, which has been increasingly viewed through a structurally racist lens of suspicion and national security.

These are in fact far more likely to create an atmosphere conducive to a (disproportionately) tiny minority being led down a path towards “terrorism”; rather than so-called “opposition to fundamental British values”. This is why those familiar with the peer reviewed science behind the empirically-determined causes of terrorism and political violence have been complaining profusely that Prevent itself is toxic and counterproductive.

The Government was caught outsourcing “surveillance” to shady third parties

Today it is Muslim activists and scholars, but tomorrow it could be anyone else; anti-austerity activists, animal rights campaigners, anti-fracking demonstrators…

Another main ground for our challenge against the government was its lack of due process and rule of law when investigating and labelling private citizens due to their political or religious views. In particular, we challenged the activities of the previously secretive department within the Home Office named “Extremism Analysis Unit” (EAU). The EAU admitted mining data and information on private citizens which were taken from third party organisations not working within the strict legal framework that applies to authorities investigating individuals.

Many ordinary citizens will be shocked that there is a department within the UK Home Office that is effectively monitoring “un-British views” (those contrary to “British values” according to their own definition). This is an uncanny throwback to the committees monitoring “Un-American Activities” in the McCarthyite era in the Unites States, or a kind of precursor to a Stasi state. An unimaginable amount of data is being collected on countless ordinary citizens, harvested and stored by the government without their knowledge, consent, or right to challenge the judgements being made about them.

What is perhaps more damning is that a golden thread was uncovered linking a well known, clearly Islamophobic organisation (Henry Jackson Society), through the EAU—who admitted to uncritically taking information and judgements on myself and other activists—to the Home Office through to 10 Downing Street itself. We had been eagerly awaiting the judgement to release detailed information about the EAU that came to light, and these will be published shortly, inshāAllāh.

The widespread ramifications of this not being critically challenged by the judiciary are worrying, as it could be applied to anyone with views that are disliked by members of the Home Office or even those shady organisations that are giving them “intelligence”, without due process and accountability. As a result we will be seeking to appeal this, inshāAllāh.

All struggles to overturn such policies targeting certain minorities historically have been long ones. Other minorities have been through the same struggle. In earlier cases, judges tend to rule on the side of the state, but such legal battles are nonetheless important to create a more just society for everyone.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/judgement-released-judicial-review-into-prevent/feed/027471Ofsted to appeal high court defeat by Birmingham Muslim schoolhttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/ofsted-to-appeal-high-court-defeat-by-birmingham-muslim-school/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/ofsted-to-appeal-high-court-defeat-by-birmingham-muslim-school/#respondTue, 11 Jul 2017 16:38:34 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=27326Al-Hijrah school did a service to the whole country by challenging Michael Wilshaw's "weaponised" Ofsted over misrepresenting the benign practice of separating boys and girls in a faith school...

]]>Ofsted is now appealing a ruling made by a high court judge against them last November, in favour of an Islamic faith school in inner-city Birmingham. The court ruled that it was wrong for Ofsted to penalise the school based on their “erroneous view” that the school’s separation of boys and girls is unlawful discrimination.

Mr Justice Jay lifted a ban Ofsted put on Al-Hijrah school after the school advanced a number of grounds for its claim for judicial review. The principle grounds were that Ofsted had acted unlawfully by “changing its mind” about the impact of “segregation”, and that its inspectors were motivated by actual or apparent bias. The judge noted that the school had separated 9-16-year-old boys and girls in the classroom “for a number of years without comment or objection” from Ofsted. The school also contented that segregating on the grounds of sex is not contrary to the Equality Act 2010.[1]

Ofsted’s chief inspector from 2012-2016, Michael Wilshaw, has said that Ofsted will appeal the ruling, saying that he was “disappointed that the court has determined that the practice of completely segregating boys and girls in this publicly funded mixed-sex school does not amount to unlawful discrimination.”

Wilshaw was appointed by the neoconservative Michael Gove when he was education secretary, who repeatedly came under fire for allegedly “politicising Ofsted”. When Wilshaw was appointed, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), Chris Keates, complained that Ofsted had become a “political weapon”:[2]

“…Ofsted [is] being viewed by nobody as independent from the secretary of state. It’s now being seen by teachers not as an inspection system, but as an arm of government… Many of the pronouncements coming out of Ofsted seem to be absolutely equal to things Michael Gove has said. I think it’s bad for the chief inspector and I think it’s bad for public accountability.”

Michael Gove was a founding member of the infamous anti-Muslim think tank Henry Jackson Society (HJS) linked to and funded by extreme Islamophobes from overseas.[3] Professor David Miller remarked in a damning report into the HJS:[4]

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”

Incidentally, Ofsted’s new-found problem with so-called “gender segregation” seems to have coincided with the appointment of Michael Gove’s friend, Wilshaw (whom he praised as a “hero”[5]). Not only that, but as Mr Justice Jay’s published judgement shows, Ofsted attempted to present the benign issue of separating boys and girls—something well established in society regardless of Muslims—as a tool “to reinforce social and cultural stereotypes about the inferiority of the female sex,”[6] in the context of this Muslim faith school.

Commendably, Mr Justice Jay, rejected Ofsted’s argument stating that first of all, boys and girls are both separated, and there was no evidence in this school’s case that it particularly disadvantages girls. But more importantly, the judge apparently rejected Ofsted’s claim—which some would call racist and Islamophobic—that this benign, age old normative Muslim practice is in fact motivated by some kind of secret, malicious intent against women:

“The only basis for holding that segregation between the sexes reinforces notions of inferiority within the female gender is by contending, and then establishing, that this is, in effect, why Islamic schools in particular or faith schools in general carry out the practice. But OFSTED has not made that argument, and there is no evidence to that effect.”

For more information on the Islamophobic spinning of normative Muslim practices such as separating men and women, read:

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/ofsted-to-appeal-high-court-defeat-by-birmingham-muslim-school/feed/027326Think tank funded by foreign extremists writes report on foreign extremist fundinghttps://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/think-tank-funded-by-foreign-extremists-writes-report-on-foreign-extremist-funding/
https://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/think-tank-funded-by-foreign-extremists-writes-report-on-foreign-extremist-funding/#commentsThu, 06 Jul 2017 20:18:10 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=27306In a move of rarely paralleled irony, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), linked to and funded by some of the most prolific Islamophobes from overseas, has published a curious “report” against overseas funding of Muslim projects in the UK, under the infamously ambiguous pretext of “extremism”.

]]>In a move of rarely paralleled irony, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), linked to and funded by some of the most prolific Islamophobes from overseas, has published a curious “report” against overseas funding of Muslim projects in the UK, under the infamously ambiguous pretext of “extremism”. Whilst it is expected from the likes of the HJS, what is of particular concern this time around is the journalists or publications attempting to sugar coat and present them to the public as some kind of neutral, credible source of knowledge about Muslims.

The report outlines nothing new beyond the normally repeated myths, stereotypes and vacuous statements about the threat of Muslims, no doubt designed to compensate for their lack of statistical significance, academic rigour and general basis in empirical reality. Thus, it is more likely an attempt to make use of some of the media momentum generated by the recent accusation by Lib Dem leader Tim Farron that Theresa May has been sitting on a report critical of Saudi Arabia.

Loyally, the HJS report focuses not on the legitimate criticisms of the Saudi political establishment, that enjoys a loving relationship with western powers, but attempts to put attention towards the country’s (independent) judicial tradition and funding of mosques and Islamic projects throughout the world. Tellingly, it decries the spread of “Wahhabism”, by which it does not mean the particular doctrines of the followers of the eponymous Shaikh Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, but the traditional imperial label for the “bad Muslim” that was an impediment to British colonial interests. (It was in the British Raj after all where “Wahhabism” was a crime for which many Muslim thinkers and scholars challenging imperialism with their pens were charged and punished, such as Siddiq Hasan Khan.)

Imperialists and their propagandists learned long ago that they could exploit intra-Muslim demarcations (such as between so-called “Wahhabis” and others), so Muslims and wider society should be very cautious whenever this term is used in public discourse, let alone weaponised by Islamophobes. There are many legitimate disagreements different Muslim schools of thought may have with the so-called Wahhabi tradition, but a cursory look at the examples of beliefs and practises of the “Wahhabi bogeyman” hated by Islamophobes shows a hatred of many beliefs and practises that are common to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history, particularly the four canonical schools of law. It is thus particularly reckless for some Muslims with a historic sectarian anger towards “Wahhabis” to let the village squabbles of their ancestors be exploited in this context.

Characteristic to a service of an irrational fear and hatred, the HJS report recycles and centres its entire existence on the evidence-less premise that there is a causal link between ideologies associated with so-called “Islamism”, and terrorism. (This is as opposed to an incidental link, as the more restrained and accountable pens of peer reviewed academics write.[1]) Even a casual familiarity with the scientific method equips one to recognise the intellectual sin of using anecdotal examples of when a “Wahhabi” happens to carry out an act of violence, whilst studiously disregarding “control” observations, vital to establish any credible correlation between two things (which would show that a mind-boggling majority of so-called “Wahhabis” do not turn to violence).

Therefore no amount of using the words “Wahhabi” or “Islamist” next to the word “terrorism” can substitute for a cogent argument for banning the former to influence the latter. Such a thoughtful and sustained ignoring of statistical significance is the hallmark of bigots trying to channel attention and anger towards a target. Such stereotypes, superstitions and pseudoscience should be called out for what they are.

Who are the Henry Jackson Society?

The irony is in the reports authors’ apparent incapability of recognising the glaring problem with a word used over 123 times throughout the document. The word “extremist” used against non-violent Muslims whose thoughts and ideas they disagree with (or those a cynic might say they are unable to challenge without resorting to repression), is the same word used—arguably more accurately—against the HJS itself.

Normally it is not from our methodology to stoop to their level and indulge in ad hominem attacks (God knows there are many open goals with the usual Islamophobes in this regard). But in this context highlighting their “extremism” and that of their morally impoverished funders is not fallacious if done in order to highlight the nature of accusations of the vacuous “extremist” label, and more importantly the agenda of those seeking to present such an organisation as a neutral source of what is and is not acceptable Muslim thought and behaviour.

The HJS has itself been exposed as received funding from notorious foreign Islamophobes including the likes of Nina Rosenwald,[2] dubbed the “sugar mama of anti-Muslim hate.”[3] Before this they were forced to withdraw from parliamentary groups in 2014 for refusing to disclose their donors to the Commons’ watchdog,[4] prompting accusations that they were so disreputable that it would have been political suicide to disclose them.[5] Professor David Miller remarked in a damning report into the HJS:[6]

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”

Its associate director Douglas Murray is a regular contributor of myths surrounding the threat Muslims pose to the world, including his recently debunked lie on the BBC that “eastern Europe doesn’t have a problem with terrorism because it doesn’t have much Islam.” People were quick to complain of such a false statement presented as truth despite eastern Europe being the only part of Europe with several Muslim majority countries and countries with higher Muslim populations than western Europe.[7] Of course some may say it is expected from someone who has urged that,

“Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board…”[8]

It is no surprise that journalists, academics and politicians alike have raised concerns about the HJS, leading to descriptions of “white supremacy” and racism.[9] Their director Murray also has publicly praised some of the most virulent Islamophobes and bigots on the planet, including Geert Wilders,[10] and Robert Spencer, the ideologue who reportedly inspired the anti-Muslim white terrorist Anders Breivik,[11] before he carried out one of the largest terrorist attacks in Europe. Murray has called him a “brilliant scholar”,[12] whose scholarly brilliance has seen him banned from entering the UK for years—by Theresa May of all people. No doubt such elegant rebuttals of Islam that impress Henry Jackson Society directors are found on his websites, including “f***islam.com”.[13]

Unfortunately Robert Spencer does not seem to be an anomaly, HJS has also defended infamous leading anti-Muslim ideologue Ingrid Carlqvist,[14] dubbed as a “Nazi Apologist” for her desire for collaboration with Neo Nazi parties in Europe.[15] In fact, several of HJS’s friends have managed to make the cut in the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists”.[16]

Even a Eurocentric cartography of Human Rights does not enjoy much sympathy with some prominent members of the HJS.[17] One of its associate fellows was on record defending torture,[18] as well as Murray,[19] who is not too keen on different types of citizens having similar fundamental rights either:

“The rights of the West’s people override those of the Islamist’s in their midst.”[20]

What has been mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg, all available from multiple sources online. To reiterate, we are not the ones calling for these Islamophobes to be targeted with the same irrational and evidence-less policies that so-called “extremists” of a different complexion are treated with. That is because their myths, stereotypes and misinformation are easily countered by the light of empirical observation and basic scrutiny, and thus we are not the ones afraid of open debate on a level playing field.

However, the attempt of some politicians, journalists, and publications to dupe the public and perpetuate such carefully crafted fallacies as truth, and such clearly passionate anti-Islam organisations as neutral, is a condemnable negligence at best, such as the BBC benignly referring to the HJS as merely “a foreign policy think tank,”[21] or Sky News simply “right-leaning”.[22] Such organisations should take heed, particularly considering that the Home Office was landed into legal trouble recently after taking some HJS’s propaganda seriously.[23]

Of course, credit should be given to the majority of journalists, politicians and people in the public eye that have broken off relations with such a toxic “think tank”, and refused to give oxygen to their misinformation, including Theresa May’s own cabinet.[24] But such “scrambling to disassociate” from the HJS only puts more of a question mark on the intentions of those who are still associating with such an organisation, let alone putting them in an undeserving and dangerous position influencing how their currently chosen target (Muslims) are to be treated in public life.

This is particularly important considering the rise of anti-Muslim attacks in Europe. Let us not forget that the largest so-called “terrorist attack” in Europe was committed by an anti-Muslim white supremacist, who cited the network of such individuals and organisations frequently.[25]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/think-tank-funded-by-foreign-extremists-writes-report-on-foreign-extremist-funding/feed/327306Battered Woman Syndrome and the Muslim Conscioushttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/battered-woman-syndrome-and-the-muslim-conscious/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/battered-woman-syndrome-and-the-muslim-conscious/#commentsWed, 29 Mar 2017 08:40:42 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25651Battered Woman Syndrome describes particular behaviour which manifests after relentless abuse. The abused begin to believe that they deserve the beating due to not living up to expectations. There is an inability to place responsibility elsewhere. These symptoms seem to be prevalent in parts of the Muslim community. Muslim communities in the West have been ...

]]>Battered Woman Syndrome describes particular behaviour which manifests after relentless abuse. The abused begin to believe that they deserve the beating due to not living up to expectations. There is an inability to place responsibility elsewhere.

These symptoms seem to be prevalent in parts of the Muslim community.

Muslim communities in the West have been the subject of what is now being referred to as structural “epistemic violence”[1]—the slow and steady dehumanisation of Muslims through counter-extremism programmes like PREVENT which seek to coerce changes in Muslim beliefs and behaviour. After more than a decade of being subjected to this violent programme, it has clearly taken its toll.

On Saturday, Muslims held a “not in my name” unity rally,[2] and sought to distance themselves and Islām from the attack. A day after, Muslim women gathered on Westminster Bridge while some women told the media that “Islam totally condemns violence” and reassured us that they were “in support of democracy.”[3]

As a Muslim woman myself, though I do not question the sincerity of these efforts, nor criticise the impulse to share in the grievance, I feel anxious. This is because such behaviour contributes to an anti-Muslim atmosphere which makes me mainly the target Islamophobic violence.

You see, sections of the Muslim community behave as though they are all to blame when they aren’t and they know they aren’t, internalising the dynamic of perpetual condemnation and desires to issue statements of rejection. It is a behaviour which reinforces the treatment of Muslims as a “suspect community”; that there is a presumption that Muslims/Muslim organisations endorse, in some tacit, secretive way, senseless violence unless explicitly and publicly rebutted. This expectation is set by government officialdom within the framework of counter-extremism, where Muslim organisations seem to get brownie points or chastisement depending on whether they condemn a violent act.[4]

It is discrimination. And it is constantly reinforced by Muslims themselves.

What really takes the cake, though, is the fact no motive of the primary suspect in the Westminster attacks have been confirmed. Mark Rowley, rather irresponsibly declared without a shred of evidence that it was “Islamist-related”.[5] The Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, mimicking the linguistic discrimination of US neocons in Donald Trump’s cabinet,[6] removed the ambiguity between “Islamism” and Islam and proclaimed that the “working assumption” was that the attack was “Islamic terrorism”.[7] The mainstream media largely followed suit escalating the demonisation of Muslims. Indeed, it has been suggested that the motive may never be known,[8] whilst a connection to ISIS has been ruled out by the Metropolitan Police,[9] making the behaviour of some Muslims all the more embarrassing.

This has not stopped the government from taking advantage of the situation, however. With the information released that the perpetrator of the Westminster attack had used Whatsapp, the likes of the Quilliam Foundation were out to show how the messaging app had been used by “ISIS-inspired terrorists” as well.[10] Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who formerly sat on the Political Council of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society,[11] called for access to encrypted messaging services.[12] Using democracy imbued with fear to defeat liberty, Number 10 has similarly followed suit. As Simon Jenkins aptly shows,[13] the government has form in exploiting public fears to further erode the privacy of citizens.

Creation of fear needs to be fed by the imagery of an enemy. And, no doubt empowered by Muslims inadvertently supporting the anti-Muslim script through their internalised blame, neoconservatives did not hesitate in using the moment to attack Muslim living spaces, thoughts, views and Islam by declaring yet more Islamic concepts as “extremist”.[14]

Muslims need to rehabilitate their collective conscious and consider whether their actions are contributing to the prevailing, state-level anti-Muslim clime. Moreover, there needs to be vigilance in how incidents are exploited by those who wish to erode civil liberties off the back of Muslim dehumanisation.

The following quote by an academic about neoconservatives I came across recently neatly describes what we have been witnessing:[15]

“[The neocon] Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative politics: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty… if you can convince people that liberty undermines security, they will gladly renounce it.”

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/battered-woman-syndrome-and-the-muslim-conscious/feed/1225651Revealed: How British Fearmongers Made Millionshttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/#commentsSat, 11 Mar 2017 18:19:06 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25499In my last article,[1] I tried to explain the imminent threat populism poses in the western world and asserted that Islamophobia is currently the populist tool of choice. Recent financial revelations in Holland have proven this beyond doubt and provided a strong link to their influence in the UK. Politically-awake Muslims will be well aware ...

]]>In my last article,[1] I tried to explain the imminent threat populism poses in the western world and asserted that Islamophobia is currently the populist tool of choice. Recent financial revelations in Holland have proven this beyond doubt and provided a strong link to their influence in the UK.

Politically-awake Muslims will be well aware of Robert Spencer, an Islam hater so extreme in his preaching that he is banned from entering the UK, a country that is not totally averse to promoting fear of Muslims. He runs a vitriolic blog called ‘Jihad Watch’ which received funding of nearly $1 million from the double-speak titled ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’.[2] It has now emerged that David Horowitz has been one of the largest funders of Geert Wilders of the equally double-speak titled ‘People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy’,[3] currently leading in Dutch polls. In 2015 alone Horowitz donated $120,000, more than enough to run a political party with only one member in a country you can cross on £20 of petrol. It was the largest individual contribution in the Dutch political system.

Another six figure donor to Geert Wilders is the “Middle East Forum”. Founded by noted Islamophobe Daniel Pipes, it was cited 18 times in Anders Breivik’s anti-Islam manifesto.[4]

The principle donor to Pipes and Horowitz and onto Wilders is said to be the Koch brothers, American multi-billionaires and key funders of the right-wing infrastructure. In a two year period they invested over $21 million in groups promoting Islamophobia “contributing to an anti-Islamic hysteria in the United States”.[5] Rather than being the heads, Horowitz and Pipes are merely the paid mouthpieces and conduits funnelling right wing money into the pockets of populist agitators like Geert Wilders.

The New York Times reported senior Dutch MP Ronald van Raak as saying “It’s foreign interference in our democracy. We would not have thought that people from other countries would have been interested in our politics,” he said. “Maybe we underestimated ourselves.” Rather they have underestimated the strategic position the coming Dutch election has for suspiciously well-funded Machiavellian far-right provocateurs. This year the major western European nations have important elections and all have far-right parties riding higher in the polls than any time since the 1930s. The stars are aligning and the Dutch election next week is the first to the ballot box.

The Henry Jackson Society’s Statement of Principles give a very clear picture of a white supremacist arrogance that seems out of step with Theresa May’s recent promise not to try to make the rest of the world in “our image”.[6] It “Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate”, “that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire” and “Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach.”[7]

In 2011 the emphasis of the HJS took a shift toward greater promotion of Islamophobia following a merger with Douglas Murray’s (yet another) double-speak titled ‘Centre for Social Cohesion’, and taking on many of the pro-Israel journalists from ‘Just Journalism’. According to a Spinwatch report this facilitated “a coup that led to the expulsion of most of the society’s more left-leaning or liberal members,” though in this context it is undoubtedly relative. This change of focus was accompanied by a sharp rise of income. From £98,000 in 2009 to £1,313,000 per annum in 2013, the sharpest rise happening in 2011.

Following the 2011 “coup”, a number of UK based pro-Israel groups started pouring in money into the HJS. From the USA one known funder is the ‘Abstraction Fund’ which has also funded an array of radical pro-zionist, anti-Islam and pro-Islamic deformation organisations including ‘Jihad watch’, ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’, Daniel Pipes linked ‘American Islamic Forum for Democracy’ and ‘Center for Islamic Pluralism’, and the ‘Zionist Organisation of America’.[8]

The President and treasurer of this fund whose single donor is her family’s Sears Roebuck fortune, is Nina Rosenwald[9] the so called “Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate”.[10] She is the founder of the Gatestone Institute which publishes Douglas Murray’s and Geert Wilders Islamophobic bile. She is also on the board of the ‘Center for Security Policy’ which shares far-right Islamophobic funders with David Horowitz.[11]

The above change of focus and known sources of funding are more than enough to prove they are no longer the HJS originally conceived and cannot be thought of as an impartial “think tank”. They are beyond doubt a pro-Israel and anti-Islam lobby group. Moreover despite what is known the HJS are so ashamed of their other sources of funding they refuse to disclose them even on pain of functional death. For refusing they were forced to withdraw from parliamentary groups that were their main Trojan horse into Westminster,[12] suggesting that their donors are so disreputable it would be an even worse political suicide to disclose them.

Dr David Miller of Spinwatch says in his report into the HJS “By solidifying a transatlantic alliance between anti-Islam groups and those unconditionally supportive of Zionism, the Islamophobia network has successfully tapped into the financial and political resources of the Israel lobby.”[13]

It seems highly plausible that it could be to a large degree the other way around; that the Israel lobby has bought up parts of the right wing network and tapped into their enthusiasm for xenophobia and white supremacy, to push the Islamophobic populist narrative. They could be believing – correctly – that the more people will think ill of Muslims the more forgiving they will be of Israel’s crimes against the Muslim victims of its land grabbing. After all, the demonisation of any group serves to dehumanise and thus ultimately legitimise their persecution.

Dr Miller continues,

“The proponents of this agenda have sought to increase public support by conflating complex contemporary debates about immigration, austerity, multiculturalism and women’s rights with the anti-Muslim discourse associated with the on-going ‘War on Terror’.”

None of this is new. None of this should have been unknown to the political establishment of the UK before they rolled out the red carpet last week and invited the HJS into Westminster to trumpet the “research” anyone of reasonable intellect must surely realise will be skewed by the Islamophobic lens the HJS are well known for. It was well known before they rushed to declare the HJS as an unquestionably reliable source of research into the only extremism they go into with enthusiasm: “Islamist Terrorism”. That word itself needs to be strongly protested. The suffix “-ist” literally means “to be engaged in”, so they are using a blanket term for every practicing Muslim as a prefix to terrorism, and then claim not to promote Islamophobia.

Something common to all media reports on this was that David Anderson QC, who was the (previously believed to be) independent terror watchdog, was mentioned more than the HJS who authored the study. In fairness to the media his glowing introduction, which he penned while still in post, allowed himself to be walked out in front and used as a human respectability shield. It seems most likely that he would not have been able to thoroughly fact-check the 1000 page report before he dutifully declared, “I commend it to all who wish to ensure that their opinions on this subject are securely founded on the facts”.[14] The fact that it solely concentrated on convictions of Muslims didn’t noticeably trouble him at all in fact with no irony he praised it as defending us from people who work against “tolerance, pluralism and broad-mindedness on which democracy itself depends.”

Andrew Gilligan writing in The Times could see the benefit of their approach and made use of its singular focus. As though a study solely of Muslim convictions would find them growing up anywhere else, his article was titled:

“Terror map reveals danger of segregation: A detailed study of the origins of British Islamists has exposed a clear link between terrorist crimes and growing up in a predominantly Muslim area.”[15]

One angle that will have been deeply attractive to the government, and likely influenced their disregard of its provenance, is that this report appears to justify the much discredited Prevent agenda, though the full ramifications of traumatising hundreds of primary school children and radicalising non-Muslims against us might not yet be evident. Still, the publicity the report generated was being used to roll the Prevent ideology out more broadly to the public; “you are all on the frontline of the war against terror, be suspicious of ‘people’.” said Police spokespeople up and down the country, clearly ready with a rehearsed and unified message. Riding the same wave of publicity generated by a report concentrating solely on Muslim convictions it needs no imagination to know which ‘people’ will be in everyone’s minds.

Another aspect that I think really attracts the government to HJS’s research is that it is cheap. So what if it is slanted far to the right? So what if there are hard-core Islamophobic funders who will be expecting bang for their buck? The bottom line is it is cheap. In Austerity Britain, academic standards that would apply to medical research, specifically the obligatory declaration of who funded it, can be put aside for research of even this sensitive nature because they do not have to take the pill. They are not the ones whose wives and daughters will be attacked for wearing a headscarf. They are not the ones who are already 76% less likely to get a good job,[16] and then be abused for being in a poor economic position or not integrating.

But they are the ones who will be remembered for opening the door to highly practiced Machiavellian populist manipulators that make our fairly right wing government look like snowflake liberals. The Islamophobic subtext that came attached to this bargain basement research gained huge traction in the media and will have lodged in the public consciousness. As I tried to describe in my last article the public can only be pushed so far before they will want to bury the current establishment that “let this Muslim problem happen,” as Mrs Merkel is finding out, and bring in a new ‘braver’ type of politician that will not be afraid to take action against people they are repeatedly told are an enormous threat. What can be banked on is that American far-right and Zionist money will be at the ready to promote the right candidates to victory.

A few days after the HJS report was given so much Westminster fanfare and media attention the Home Office quietly released the official terrorism policing statistics for 2016. They show a combined Black, Asian & Other 42% fall in the number of arrests and a 20% increase of white people arrested for Terrorism offenses in the last year.[17] I can only find it mentioned in three newspapers. I am guessing facts are bad for the fearmongering business.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/revealed-how-british-fearmongers-made-millions/feed/525499Police chief avoids HJS event after public pressurehttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/police-chief-avoids-hjs-event-after-public-pressure/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/police-chief-avoids-hjs-event-after-public-pressure/#respondWed, 08 Mar 2017 14:06:03 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25486We reported yesterday that a senior Metropolitan Police Chief Mark Rowley came under criticism for initially agreeing to attend an event by the infamous Henry Jackson Society.[1] However, due to campaigning by organisations such as MEND, he is reported to have “snubbed” the event.[2] Muslim Council of Britain slams Met Police chief for supporting Islamophobic ...

]]>We reported yesterday that a senior Metropolitan Police Chief Mark Rowley came under criticism for initially agreeing to attend an event by the infamous Henry Jackson Society.[1] However, due to campaigning by organisations such as MEND, he is reported to have “snubbed” the event.[2]

Henry Jackson Society’s report launch about so-called “Islamist terrorism” not only went ahead without the chief, but the David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation who wrote a foreword to the report, also declined an invitation to the event. He reportedly told the Middle East Eye:

“I do not associate myself with all the activities and statements of the Henry Jackson Society. Indeed I declined their invitation to the launch in case there should be any misunderstanding about this.”

“Mark Rowley ought to be commended for a brave and principled decision not to attend this event with organisations like HJS, who peddle Islamophobia and whose Student Rights subsidiary has carried out ‘witch-hunts’ against Muslim students, as the NUS [National Union of Students] confirmed,”

“There is no place for people like this in our ‘tolerant and mutual-respect based society’. In our view, the Met risked losing serious credibility with Muslim communities which could undermine the fight against extremism if they spoke on an HJS platform.

“The Muslim community will be greatly comforted by their decision and the Met should be congratulated on it.”

This episode goes to show the importance of ordinary people using their voice to hold those in influential public positions to account. Organisations like MEND and MCB that facilitate such accountability and activism should be supported and worked with on the common good to spread justice, accountability and ma’ruf, decreasing harm and injustice in whatever capacity possible.

Organisations like the HJS are a relic of power structures before the advent of social media where all people have the potential to spread common sense and expose to ridicule ideologies that wish to disempower and frighten society.